,$8 VERDICT OX INDIA , jtfalaviya, in spite of these- foibles, is entitled to our respect. Extreme Hindu as he is, he has fought the battle of the untouchables, and admitted hundreds of them into the Hindu fold. That proves that his heart is very much in the right place* for only a deep love of his fellow-men could make him challenge the faith of his fathers. He starves himself for that faith, and yet he takes up the eudgds for tho.se whom the faith has made pariahs. It would be ungenerous to tfcny that he comes out of this story pretty well. We left Dr. Ambedkar, leader of the 60 million Uutouchablesr proelamiiig that... 'Gandhi Is- the greatest enemy the Untouchables have ever had in India.* This will come a> a violent shock to most people. Gandhi haft ceaselessly proclaimed his detestation, of untouchability. He has untouchables in his ashram, he has adopted an untouchable child, and lie has declared, 'I would rather that Hinduism die tKan untouchability live.9 This often-quoted remark, by the way, does not really make sense. Untouchability is as integral a part of the Hindu faith as anti-semitism of the Nazi; begin by destroying untouchability and you will end bj" destroying all caste. And caste is the only cement which saves the incredibly complicated Hindu structure from collapse. None the less, Gandhi was probably sincere when he spoke. So what did Ambedkar mean ? We can best explain it by a parallel. Take Ambedkar's remark, and for the word "untouchables' substitute the word 'peace.* Now, imagine that a great champion of peace, like Lord Cecil, said, c Gandhi is the greatest enemy of peace the world has ever had.'' What would he meaix, using these words of the most spectacular pacifist of modern times ? He would mean that passive resistance—which is Gandhi's form of pacifism—could only lead to chaos and the eventual triumph of brute force ; that} to lie down and let people trample on you (which was Gandhi's recipe for dealing with the Japanese) is a temntaHon tn «»*.